|
Have just concluded a fascinating assignment, technically speaking: the same 2-hour long presentation on tax administration issues, given by the same two speakers to successive groups of 50 participants, over three full days + two half-days, ie a total of THIRTEEN such instances, interpreted from a bi-active triple booth. I had had previous repeat performances, but never these many and this close, and was thus fascinated and educated this time round, from one session to the next,by
so much so that I wondered why such an approach, ie let us learn from doing, pondering and experimenting in the framework of repeat performances, was not regularly used in training courses, from scratch or refresher, with the added benefit of expert critique. Any thoughts? |
|
Practice makes perfect, as the saying goes. I think that a frequently underestimated part of becoming a good conference interpreter is becoming desensitized to the conference environment itself, which allows you to focus on the actual work and hence do a better job. Thank you very much, Jonathan :-). Interesting point, the one you make, I suppose there's some truth in it... but don't you think it could easily be misconstrued, not to say misused, by the "commoditizers" ;-), ie why bother with our requests for context info, why bother flying us to the conference, if we then proceed to "ignore" goings on and deal with discourse alone, somewhat like translators dealing with text "alone"? Of course, you do say "desensitize", not ignore, but still... :-)
(18 Apr '12, 12:07)
msr
1
I see what you're saying Manuel, but I think it actually helps our case. A big part of why we request documents and context is so that we will not being surprised by every single new piece of sensory information and thus will be able to do a better job. If I don't have a list of speakers with the name of their positions in English, I'll get the point across, but my interpretation of an introduction round will be more clumsy. If I know who the people are, and I've got a list of their titles in English, then I exert much less mental effort trying to translate their titles on the fly and decipher their names and instead focus on saying them with a pleasant delivery. The result, therefore, is much more satisfactory.
(18 Apr '12, 13:02)
Jonathan
|
|
Here are just three (associative) thoughts triggered by your question (and thanks for keeping it so open since I think there is a long tail of unchartered research territory behind it):
Thank you very much, Tanja :-). Let me quote from your #2 "repetition seemed to help in providing added value": you've encapsulated "my point" to a "t" :-) ... it was indeed the addition of value that we found fascinating, as in just the right amount of localisation in examples, the right timing in jokes, the right register change for emphasis, etc :-). Your #3 makes senses to me, insofar as adrelanine may indeed play a major role in the first of two, less so in a series of 13 within 5 days, provided the interpreters cottoned on to the unique, "lab" like opportunity this represented, ie "novelty" adrenaline was replaced by "let's see just how much can we perfect this" ;-) adrenaline.
(18 Apr '12, 11:43)
msr
|
|
It's an interesting point you've raised. Here's my take on it: 1) Training: We sometimes use repetition in training at the Master's course where I teach. For instance, we might have students take notes and do consec from a speech, and then go into the booth and do the same speech in simultaneous immediately afterwards. Or we will take speeches done in consec class the previous week and use them again for simultaneous class. Or even have them do two simultaneous versions of the same speech back-to-back. The idea of using repetition in the training context is to create a situation where students are familiar with the material and so can focus more on the technique and less on absorbing information. Of course, since the speeches are delivered live each time, you never get 100% identical versions, as you would if you were working with recordings in training. 2) Professional practice: I have to deal with repetition in real life as well. I have one client who often holds two versions of the same meeting spaced a few months apart. The agenda is identical, as are the presentations and the people at the top table (not to mention the interpreters). Only the national delegates are different. In each case, I found that having worked at what was basically the same meeting a few months previously helped me the second time around. Here's another one: In successive jobs with one client, I have heard the same keynote-type presentation given by the same individual at the same type of meeting about 8 or 10 times over the past few years. The only difference is that each time, it's to a different audience. Do I do a better job each time around? I hope I do! There's a bit about chainsaws in the middle, and the first time around, it caught me off guard ("did he really say chainsaws?"), but these days, I can tell when the chainsaw bit is coming... I like the speech so much, I ask to do it, even when it's not officially my turn ;). You'll find a similar situation happens with any client who hires the same interpreters for regular meetings (annual conferences, quarterly shareholders meetings, even the European Parliament plenary weeks, whatever). The client gets a better service because the interpreters draw on their familiarity with the subject matter. 3) Now to research: Interestingly, some of the ground-breaking work done by Daniel Gile when he was developing his Effort Model showed that the same professional interpreters doing the same speech twice back-to-back would make roughly the same number of mistakes each time, only in different places (!). So maybe our gut feeling that repetition leads to improved performance is not entirely borne out by the evidence. Thank you very much, Michelle :-). I am of course aware of the type of repetition you mention in your #1 and have used it msyelf when I taught - I no longer teach these days. The novelty, in the situation I report, was the focus on production, as opposed to listening and the fact that we were working for a real, live audience - makes all the difference to professionals - which allowed us to gauge the effectiveness of our changes straightaway :-). My point was not growing familiarity with subject-matter, speakers or context, as you say in your #2, and as Jonathan had also indicated - I was indeed able to gauge its effectiveness during my decade with the EP - but rather being able to improve on sucessive versions of what one did (from the same live presentation, you're absolutely right when you say live vs. recorded makes all the difference, including normal changes by speakers which keep us on our toes) enough times within a short enough period for one to both remember what one had done, "highlight" what could be bettered and compare it with what one did next... never forgetting the bard's advice "striving to better oft we mar what's well"! :-) Finally, I am familiar with Daniel's seminal effort model, have frequently drawn thereon to explain stuff, but had always read the findings you mention to indicate that the average number of our mistakes is determined by our "quality", not familiarity with source.
(18 Apr '12, 12:01)
msr
|
so what exactly is the question?
@msr Could you edit your post so that one can clearly read your question? I honestly don't understand what you'd like to know
"why such an approach, ie let us learn from doing, pondering and experimenting in the framework of repeat performances, was not regularly used in training courses, from scratch or refresher, with the added benefit of expert critique."
and
"any thoughts?"
were to my mind clear questions.
Anyway,not everything in life or the profession is black and white, right or wrong... a candid discussion of such matters may well elicit incremental contributions, more relevantly so than hammering them into pointed questions for rotund answers :-).